Scheiner v. Brin and Brin v. Scheiner
The myth of transparent society, ļoti interesanta on line diskusija Wired starp Deividu Brinu (David Brin), grāmatas The Transparent Society autoru, kurš apšauba vispārpieņemto big brother apgalvojumu, ka jaunās tehnoloģijas neatstāj citu iespēju kā vien izvēlēties vienu no diviem - privātās dzīves aizsardzību vai brīvību, apgalvojot - mēs jau 200 gadu dzīvojam transparent society, un Interneta drošības ekspertu Brūsu Šeineru (Bruce Scheiner), kurš uzskata, ka Brina transparent society nav nekas vairāk, kā mīts.
If I disclose information to you [argues Brin], your power with respect to me increases. One way to address this power imbalance is for you to similarly disclose information to me. We both have less privacy, but the balance of power is maintained. But this mechanism fails utterly if you and I have different power levels to begin with. Think of your existing power as the exponent in an equation that determines the value of information. [..] The more power you have, the more additional power you derive from the new data. (Scheiner)
But this is precisely the age-old problem that Enlightenment civilization was invented to solve! Just take Schneier's formulation and replace the words "information" and "new data" with "secrets." Now, it can be argued that both versions are true. But which version gives you a worse case of the creeps? If civilization becomes a cloud of secrecy (as some are now trying to achieve), that's when elites can really exploit disparities of power. [..] For we already live in the openness experiment, and have for 200 years. It is called the Enlightenment — with "light" both a core word and a key concept in our turnabout from 4,000 years of feudalism. All of the great enlightenment arenas — markets, science and democracy — flourish in direct proportion to how much their players (consumers, scientists and voters) know, in order to make good decisions. To whatever extent these arenas get clogged by secrecy, they fail. (Brin)